The stupidity of the theism/atheism debate.

[MsDoodles]

Hello, just got into the forum today

I've been watching the forum for a while so I decided to register too.

I may be getting into deep waters a bit too soon here but I've always wanted to have this conversation with people and this seems like a good chance. So here's the thing.

I see people both religious and non-religious constantly having this idiotic argument as to the existence of God or not. Personally I've gone through several phases of beliefs before ending up in the one that I found true to my core, the one I feel that explains everything to me in a genuine way. But that's not the point here. The point is that it always amazed me how some people, especially non-scientists but common everyday people like us, will reach an 'absolute' conclusion that God or anyone and anything close to what we mean as God, cannot and does not exist and that every person who believes so is a religious brainwashed lunatic. The argument they use for their claims which are extremely and profoundly absolute and arrogant, especially for people who are supposed to be using 'logic' for their points, is that religions believe in 'invisible' and 'untouchable' unproved things and 'ghosts' and therefore whoever believes in ghosts is an idiot. I'm sorry but this kind of thinking has so many logic errors and idiocies in it that I really don't know where to begin from.

If we take their way of thinking as something 'logical' and assume that people should believe only in what they can see with their eyes, touch with their hands and prove with their senses, then we will go down in a VERY interesting path.

1) If we should never believe in anything that we can't see and touch then should we believe in the existence of things such as love, hate, freedom, intelligence, logic or even in the existence of the 'mind' which is not a physical organ like the brain and yet everyone knows it exists and everyone admits its existence? So if religious people are stupid for believing in invisible things, then doesn't that also mean that non-religious people who believe in things like freedom and love, are also stupid, since those things are also invisible and untouchable?

2) If someone thinks that not being religious is 'smarter' and more 'rational', then doesn't that mean that , as intelligent and rational knowledgable beings, they should never be absolute about their ideas, especially given the fact that our kind has still not even discovered half of the things we need in order to 'know' the mysteries of our world? Shouldn't then a truly intelligent and rational being be open minded enough to admit that even though the religious beliefs are something he/she doesn't agree with, they are still a set of beliefs that are possible as a theory and should not be completely rejected, since we don't really know everything yet?

And FINALLY

3) Shouldn't a truly intelligent being be able to seperate the spiritual realm from the physical one and tell the difference between 'spirituality' and common every day logic? What I mean is that humans are using only up to 7-10% of their brain capacity. We use that brain capacity mainly for things that concern our physical-material world which we usually explain through our analytical and logical abilities. However, trying to explain spirituality and spiritual matters through common materialistic logic is as 'smart' as trying to teach philosophy to Coco the gorilla. And it amazes me that so many 'smart' people out there seem to think that they can actually explain spiritual stuff through maths and chemistry and are immediately getting a 'eureka' moment when they realize that their maths can;'t explain them and therefore spirituality is 'bullsh@t'. Spiritual matters concern the spiritual world...they cannot be explained through theorems, computer science and algorithms. Much like you can't explain algorithms using prayers. So why do so many generally smart people seem to confuse these two and even go as far as to claim that intelligent people can never be religious or spiritual because that's 'stupid'?

For example there are scientists, astronomers and artists in this world who have gained a reputation for their charisma and intelligence who are both scientists and religious people (don't see why not). Are all those people primitive 'apes' who can't think beyond their lil 'ghosts', and is Richard Dawkins, a man who spends half of his life time spewing hate and insults against millions of people more than he spends to actually become better in his science, the only 'intelligent' man in the world?

And was Socrates, the man who said that all he knows is that he knows nothing, stupid?

I think these are all matters that those absolute 'I know it all' lil minds out there should really think about, especially before falling on the extremely juvenile, dumb and low level of calling other people 'stupid' for their beliefs. And even more, when these minds are equipped to be very intelligent as well.

And this wasn't really meant as an insult against non-religious people in general but mostly for those who are very arrogant and absolute in their beliefs.

So what are your thoughts on this?

 

[Black Rose]

y thoughts are that in the same way, I use food for energy but temporary, energy and food is not permanent. My body is material but my mind uses it to exists. Just because you take away my body does not mean I was my body. Kill me and put me in a box, is that me? That is stupid, of course, it's not but its the same body. My belief is that a supercomputer in the future will us 4D model of all human history to backtrack people. This is like taking all atoms of a once dead person and putting them back together. Math is involved to find the right positions and all that but if I am gone there is no reason I am gone for good. So that means I am not material but I need atoms when I am alive. I can die but come back and that cannot be explained just by saying I am my body because I have no physical body in the in-between state. So far that is what I think is the case and is true. I can change and have many different experiences even dream I am different people. It's possible by changing my brain. But I experience my experiences, not yours, not anyone's, just mine. But I can dream I am you or them but not be.

 

[redbaron]

depends what we're talking about when we talk about religious

if they believe the part about the world being 6000 years old and that we have sin because a woman ate an apple given to him by a talking snake...then yeah, that's pretty brainwashed territory right there. whether the person is a lunatic or not usually depends on other stuff

can't be sure there's no sp00ky force or something, but i'm pretty sure if there is, it's not that one

cbf getting into the whole redundancy of metaphysical concepts at the moment but i'm less wrong and you're more wrong than me!!!!

 

[Black Rose]

metacognition is thinking about thinking

so metaphysics is simply the physics of physics or physics that explains ontology (existence)

what can we use to explain and or study the existence of existence and non-existence? metaphysics?

 

[MsDoodles]

depends what we're talking about when we talk about religious

if they believe the part about the world being 6000 years old and that we have sin because a woman ate an apple given to him by a talking snake...then yeah, that's pretty brainwashed territory right there. whether the person is a lunatic or not usually depends on other stuff

can't be sure there's no sp00ky force or something, but i'm pretty sure if there is, it's not that one

cbf getting into the whole redundancy of metaphysical concepts at the moment but i'm less wrong and you're more wrong than me!!!!

Sorry but if you disagree with someone's views that doesn't mean they are brainwashed. Have you ever considered the possibility that your views seem just as brainwashed and stupid to others? So how do we know which one is brainwashed and which one is not? Also speaking as someone who has actually bothered to read the Bible and understand it and not just read it like a "silly book", your understanding of what the Bible says is at least superficial in a way that shows just how little effort you've put in understanding it. So again, are you sure you're not the one who is brainwashed here? And what's with the last sentence?

 

[washti]

Hi.
Science creates, tests and rejects theories about the nature of reality.
Technology sharpens the perception of scientists.
Religion creates a sense of certainty by cultivating dogma.

 

[Jennywocky]

Sorry but if you disagree with someone's views that doesn't mean they are brainwashed. Have you ever considered the possibility that your views seem just as brainwashed and stupid to others? So how do we know which one is brainwashed and which one is not? Also speaking as someone who has actually bothered to read the Bible and understand it and not just read it like a "silly book", your understanding of what the Bible says is at least superficial in a way that shows just how little effort you've put in understanding it. So again, are you sure you're not the one who is brainwashed here? And what's with the last sentence?

"Not sure if I should post this because <dont wanna create drama cuz new>, but <then takes a crazy aggressive stance towards long-term members>"

Look, I was involved in conservative Christianity for 35 years so yeah, I know I've read the Bible and there was a time when I even believed it.

The reality is that you have to test what you believe and triangulate data. Conservative/fundamentalist views of scripture don't hold up with what we've learned about the world from a neutral perspective. The earth is simply not 6000 years old, and that POV cannot be seriously defended without resorting to unsupportable arguments ("Well, maybe god just made it look that way <for some reason> or maybe the devil planted dinosaur bones.") So it's not a matter of being brainwashed to believe things that can be tested. You're far more liable to go off the track by asserting things you have no way to verify.

More moderate views of scripture have much more opportunity for reasonable discussion, although here's where I'm at now: In the end, faith is faith and you decide to believe something beyond what can be tested, if you want... but you'll never have proof for it. So you choose to believe it, or you choose to stick with what can be tested and allow the rest to remain ambiguous. I don't think it's reasonable to go to the FAR extreme and say something DOESN'T exist because you'll never have confirmation of that either in a huge universe, but you can definitely assess the odds.

 

[redbaron]

Sorry but if you disagree with someone's views that doesn't mean they are brainwashed. Have you ever considered the possibility that your views seem just as brainwashed and stupid to others? So how do we know which one is brainwashed and which one is not? Also speaking as someone who has actually bothered to read the Bible and understand it and not just read it like a "silly book", your understanding of what the Bible says is at least superficial in a way that shows just how little effort you've put in understanding it. So again, are you sure you're not the one who is brainwashed here? And what's with the last sentence?

sure, disagreement doesn't mean brainwashing - but i also never said that.

holding certain beliefs though, does require some brainwashing, and there's whole sects and churches that teach children to reflexively reject facts, ideas and research that assume the world is older than 6000 years. there's a lot of religious people who really are brainwashed, often from childhood. doesn't apply to all of them

there's certain beliefs that people only hold today as the product of brainwashing. people who believe in a geocentric universe with a 6000 year old Earth, and that they'll burn in hell for eternity if they sin, are brainwashed, often to no fault of their own

i've read most of the bible as well

am i sure the earth is older than 6000 years, and that the Sun is the centre of our solar system? um yeah, pretty sure on that one - and the difference is that this wasn't a thing impressed upon me with fear tactics as a child, it's just a product of education.

while i wouldn't just wholesale write off every religious person as brainwashed, there's certainly a lot who are

 

[Black Rose]

I believed the snake talked because of the cartoon told me so.

I believed the flood happened because the cartoon told me it happened.

I believed the sun was in the sky 3 whole days without setting because the cartoon told me so.

Cartoons told me the bible was true so I subconsciously believed it.

I believed I was going to hell 7 year age 12 - 19. because of bible camp and the Left Behind Series and masturbation and embarrassment to be Christian.

I listened to the first 6 book on audio tape when 13 and thought this was how it would happen. I was sure I would not be raptured.

 

[Hadoblado]

These arguments are idiotic BUT...

XD

Spoiler

1) If we should never believe in anything that we can't see and touch then should we believe in the existence of things such as love, hate, freedom, intelligence, logic or even in the existence of the 'mind' which is not a physical organ like the brain and yet everyone knows it exists and everyone admits its existence? So if religious people are stupid for believing in invisible things, then doesn't that also mean that non-religious people who believe in things like freedom and love, are also stupid, since those things are also invisible and untouchable?

That's a strawman. Nobody thinks we should only believe in things we can touch, or, at least, nobody relevant to this conversation. There are however people (including myself) who believe we should only believe in stuff we can observe.

So what's the difference?

Well I've never seen our lord and savior Donald Trump, but I believe he exists. I haven't layed eyes on him, and I haven't touched his gawdly orange appendages, but yet I still believe. Why? Because I think all other hypotheses as to observed phenomenon are false. How would I explain the TV telling me he exists if he didn't exist? Some sort of conspiracy? It just doesn't seem that plausible that anyone would go to the effort.

I can observe evidence for his existence, then come up with explanations, then rule out the ones that don't make sense until it's narrowed down to fewer possibilities. Once you're down to one, that's when you have a positive belief about something (or you haven't thought about it enough).

2) If someone thinks that not being religious is 'smarter' and more 'rational', then doesn't that mean that , as intelligent and rational knowledgable beings, they should never be absolute about their ideas, especially given the fact that our kind has still not even discovered half of the things we need in order to 'know' the mysteries of our world? Shouldn't then a truly intelligent and rational being be open minded enough to admit that even though the religious beliefs are something he/she doesn't agree with, they are still a set of beliefs that are possible as a theory and should not be completely rejected, since we don't really know everything yet?

Screw being smarter and more rational. That feels like an identity politics take on gawd. The variance between groups (religious and non-religious) is far smaller than the variance within them. What does this mean? Well, I can't go calling someone stupid just based on their beliefs alone. That would be stupid.

But people do. Why?

Because it is mind-boggling that someone who is otherwise capable would maintain such an inconsistent worldview. It's really truly crazy. But people can and do do this all the time, because people are not inherently rational, and intelligence does little to combat bias. People have an expectation for others to be more rational than they are, but this has never been the best model for human behaviour, ideology, or beliefs (just look at economics).

A smart person is more able to defend an irrational belief from themselves and others than is a non-smart person.

If we are driven to preserve beliefs (and we quite often are) then the intelligence we've put our faith in is betraying its master's self proclaimed goal of finding the truth. Because even if consciously we want to find the truth, we also subconsciously want to be right.

And yes I would assert the difficult to falsify assertion that if you think you are exempt from this trend, that would be exactly consistent with the predictions of this trend: Preserving identity as an impartial observer over overturning these assertions with universifiable criteria for impartiality.

3) Shouldn't a truly intelligent being be able to seperate the spiritual realm from the physical one and tell the difference between 'spirituality' and common every day logic? What I mean is that humans are using only up to 7-10% of their brain capacity. We use that brain capacity mainly for things that concern our physical-material world which we usually explain through our analytical and logical abilities. However, trying to explain spirituality and spiritual matters through common materialistic logic is as 'smart' as trying to teach philosophy to Coco the gorilla. And it amazes me that so many 'smart' people out there seem to think that they can actually explain spiritual stuff through maths and chemistry and are immediately getting a 'eureka' moment when they realize that their maths can;'t explain them and therefore spirituality is 'bullsh@t'. Spiritual matters concern the spiritual world...they cannot be explained through theorems, computer science and algorithms. Much like you can't explain algorithms using prayers. So why do so many generally smart people seem to confuse these two and even go as far as to claim that intelligent people can never be religious or spiritual because that's 'stupid'?

Okay so the 7-10% brain capacity is fake news used to create problems that can be addressed with snake-oil supplements. "You're only meeting a proportionally small percent of your potential but I can help you to meet more of it". It's not real. The brain is frighteningly efficient at cannibalising anything that isn't being used and recruiting it towards other functions. Within minutes, a person that has had their arm amputated can have the topographical representation of that limb in the somatosensory cortex recruited for other purposes (if memory serves correctly I believe it was recruited for the cheek?). You basically use all of your brain albeit to different degrees in different areas at different times.

Secondly, separating the spiritual/mind stuff from the real isn't hard. Essentially, if it can be measured it's real, and not spiritual (not in the sense you're using). That vast majority of modern neuroscience is carried out under the assumption that the mind is the result of strictly physical processes even if we don't experience them as such. It is not this way because of some sort of conviction in this conclusion, there are plenty of people for who this conclusion is incompatible with their belief system. Rather, this is an assumption used because it's consistent with basically everything we find. If you lose a particular part of your brain, your personality and other functions are impaired in a predictable way. Our understanding of neurology is still somewhat naive in a lot of ways, but we know a staggering amount about what happens, where, and why. Chances are, that if you name a single facet of consciousness commonly attributed to a spiritual definition of the mind, there is some neuroscientist out there with a good idea of how they could turn it off if they were so inclined.

Empathy? - kill off oxytocin
Fear? Disgust? - kill off the amygdala
Memory? - kill off the hypocampus

~ crude examples, but you get the point.

Even your bodily autonomy - I'm currently working in a lab pummeling people's motor cortex with magnets. I get to move their limbs for them ))

So umm... back on track... On spirituality being explained. Yeah so the gate for disbelief is not whether it can be explained using maths or logic. It's whether it can be verifiably observed. None of us have any issue believing in black holes. It's not politicised at all, and everyone sort of just accepts them despite them being real difficult to directly interact with. I can't see it, it can't touch it, but I can observe it by the effect it has on its surrounds. But if all of the scientists decided they were wrong all along, that they didn't exist and there was another perfectly fine explanation, I'd probably change my mind too. Not because I have faith in blackholes, but because I know I'm not an astrophysicist and I barely understand blackholes. My belief in this phenomenon is loose and easily changed because I have no investment, it's just the best explanation I know of.

But then you get spiritual claims that are politically weighted. Suddenly there's this expectation for me not only to believe in something I cannot see or touch, but something that I cannot observe, that nobody has any degree of advanced scientific understanding on, and for which there are inconsistent accounts for. I don't know where to start with verifying the claim, and apparently nobody can give me anything even close to a good answer. I look at people who do believe and I don't understand how they got there... and they don't either.

Spiritual = something that isn't observable.

If ESP or fairies or dragons or whatever else was observable, it wouldn't be spiritual anymore, it'd be science. Show me evidence that can be reproduced in a lab and I'm on your side.

In the meantime, why do you believe in it if you have not observed it? What has you convinced that your view is right? What stops you from believing in the other infinite possible conceptualisations of existence?

For example there are scientists, astronomers and artists in this world who have gained a reputation for their charisma and intelligence who are both scientists and religious people (don't see why not). Are all those people primitive 'apes' who can't think beyond their lil 'ghosts', and is Richard Dawkins, a man who spends half of his life time spewing hate and insults against millions of people more than he spends to actually become better in his science, the only 'intelligent' man in the world?

And was Socrates, the man who said that all he knows is that he knows nothing, stupid?

I think these are all matters that those absolute 'I know it all' lil minds out there should really think about, especially before falling on the extremely juvenile, dumb and low level of calling other people 'stupid' for their beliefs. And even more, when these minds are equipped to be very intelligent as well.

And this wasn't really meant as an insult against non-religious people in general but mostly for those who are very arrogant and absolute in their beliefs.

So what are your thoughts on this?

This is more of that identity stuff. It's not that people who have non-scientific beliefs are stupid. It's just that their biases are overt. People are people. Everyone has biases, even the smartest people in the world.

A large number of internet atheists are an ongoing cringe comp. They're often pretty horrible, but benefit from a shared identity they've often been denied IRL. I found it interesting watching the atheist youtube movement slowly lean into antifeminism and holocaust denial. The atheism vs. theism debate got boring and stopped getting views so they switched gears.

Nobody thinks Dawkins is the only intelligent man in the world, that's another strawman.

TLDR:
You seem to be attacking the weakest representation of atheism. That's okay, there are a lot of shitty atheists out there I agree. But you're not really contending with the more meaty logics. You've made it sort of an us vs. them, emphasising the 'them' cos you're not stating your own beliefs (which is also fine, but worth noting).

You need to make your definition of 'spiritual' very clear, because that's where a lot of these disagreements stem from. Also you need to state why you believe the things you do in absence of observation.

 

[Kuu]

Silly Hado, you can't argue against believers using the frameworks of reason and science. In fact you simply can't argue with them. Took the bait and swallowed it whole.

My problem with believers is two-fold. First, that it is so deeply sad that they so vehemently believe in and persist in spreading such falsehoods. Second, and this is multiplied by the intensity of the first, is the fact that so deeply believing in a god, they fail to see that if there has to be one, then surely I must be Him.

 

[Black Rose]

You can observe the motion of atoms in cells in the brain but you cannot observe my feelings. Subjectivity is unobservable by definition accept to the subject. I look at a red rose. Can you measure my feeling of redness? Can you measure the feeling of pure love I have for my true love and put that in a computer file of numbers. What do you do with the file of numbers? It tells you my atoms moved and I felt love for my true love. But why? Why do atoms moving = true love feelings? Why not feelings of opposite valence from the same atom movements. Atoms in one arrangement and motion have one feeling but why? why not different. Why does a pain nerve not produce pleasure from the exact same atoms in motion? Why these feelings from these atom motions? And why is it immeasurable that we do not know what feelings come from what atom motions? Only I feel my pain, not the measuring device. Only I see the red, not the device measuring me.

Consciousness is not measurable. Only I feel my pain and see redness no the device. It is subjective. Why do I need atoms to feel? I know when atoms move I feel things, I think things, But why, why these atoms? The problem is Unity. (UNITY) is the problem. why am I a unified being from my atoms? My theory is that all activity in the brain unifies by a referent point not in space but in time. Each event connects to all other events in time and so is unified which cannot happen in space. Event in the past connect to events in the future for all events and so even if separated in space is unified in time and the present is the interface between past and future brain events. spiking neurons. Being unified we experience the whole experience of seeing all the park or your room, you see all your room at once or all the park at once. Reference in time interfaced in the present you can see the whole scene at once. Atoms do not need to unify they just need to be a point of reference.

So the motion of the atoms in the past and future matter for the unification of subjectivity in the present. Unification cannot happen only in space. A measuring device cannot feel my feelings, therefore, the subjective is immeasurable.

 

[Hadoblado]

@AK
Because that's not how causality works.

If I show you a USB with my favourite hentai collection, you don't interpret this ascartoon wonderland. You just see a USB. For the same reason a CD player can't read a cassette tape, our current measures can't read minds in the first person.

Really, I'm sort of gobsmacked. Just be fucking impressed goddamit! We can tell what people are thinking by measuring their brain! Holy shit dude wowee! Get excited

You proclaim that consciousness isn't measurable, but that feels like the conclusion you're starting with, rather than something you have reasons to believe. We probably can tell if someone is conscious based on neural activity (I don't actually know, but it's a pretty sure bet). If uninterrupted, we probably will start interfacing more with the neural, and start sharing thoughts in the subjective sense.

I don't understand why you start talking about time travel

 

[Black Rose]

My subjective experience is nontransferable.
You cannot tell if I am a philosophical zombie or not by measurement. How can you measure if I experience redness right now from atoms in motion is real when in fact I could be a zombie? The premise of measurement itself would be invalidated.

 

[washti]

My subjective experience is nontransferable.

Are you talking about qualia?
Mental states and processes like love, consciousness are working concepts. their existance is questioned and definition changed with aqusition of new data about living organism.

The problem is Unity. (UNITY) is the problem. why am I a unified being from my atoms?

Your are an unified being becasue of interplay between physics fundamental forces and fields and matter in different scales.
Electrons behavior creates chemical bond uniting your atoms into molecules and compounds. Macromolecules (lipids, proteins, nucleic acids) build and sustain different types of celles.

 

[MsDoodles]

sure, disagreement doesn't mean brainwashing - but i also never said that.

holding certain beliefs though, does require some brainwashing, and there's whole sects and churches that teach children to reflexively reject facts, ideas and research that assume the world is older than 6000 years. there's a lot of religious people who really are brainwashed, often from childhood. doesn't apply to all of them

there's certain beliefs that people only hold today as the product of brainwashing. people who believe in a geocentric universe with a 6000 year old Earth, and that they'll burn in hell for eternity if they sin, are brainwashed, often to no fault of their own

i've read most of the bible as well

am i sure the earth is older than 6000 years, and that the Sun is the centre of our solar system? um yeah, pretty sure on that one - and the difference is that this wasn't a thing impressed upon me with fear tactics as a child, it's just a product of education.

while i wouldn't just wholesale write off every religious person as brainwashed, there's certainly a lot who are

I'm sure you know this but I'll say it anyway. I've read the history of Christianity and about all of the new dogmas. Thing is that in the modern day there are thousand of supposedly Christian dogmas and cults which have absolutely no relation with the original dogmatic church coming directly from the apostles. The original dogma not only doesnt claim that the earth is 6000 years old but it also gives some very good explanations as to how time is counted and perceived through Biblical lenses and you'd be surprised to know that the very Bible actually is in agreement with the scientific approach. The reason why these modern 'dogmas' are saying a bunch of ridiculous things is because they have literally created their own made up religion in which the tele evangelist is erroneously translating and interpreting scriptures that have long ago been interpreted by the original Apostolic books but none of these dogmas are ever interested in them. My point is that if someone hasn't studied Christianity and hasn't seen the major differences between the original church and the modern cults, everything will always seem confusing and ridiculous. The key is in the history and the right or wrong interpretations. To sum up, the right interpretation of the Bible indicates that the earth is billions years old. That was just one example to show you how many misunderstandings are out there.

 

[MsDoodles]

I believed the snake talked because of the cartoon told me so.

I believed the flood happened because the cartoon told me it happened.

I believed the sun was in the sky 3 whole days without setting because the cartoon told me so.

Cartoons told me the bible was true so I subconsciously believed it.

I believed I was going to hell 7 year age 12 - 19. because of bible camp and the Left Behind Series and masturbation and embarrassment to be Christian.

I listened to the first 6 book on audio tape when 13 and thought this was how it would happen. I was sure I would not be raptured.

I I never said that there are no lunatics out there who preach cr@p guys or who don't even know anything about the Bible and yet create 'camps' for kids. But if someone wants to have a thorough look and conclusion on religions, he/she cannot rely only on what they learned/were taught in their childhood. You search for the knowledge, it doesn't just come to you. If you're interested, there's an entire internet full of info on every single aspect of Christianity and you would easily find out and understand why there are so many errors and idiocies in how Christianity is taught today, especially by a series of groups who know nothing about the Bible. That's how I was educated on all things Christianity. If I relied on what I had heard as a child, I'd still think that a lil cloud will some day 'grab' me off the earth like so many people believe it will magically happen to them lol.

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm not saying I could currently do these things. I'm saying that claims like "you can't measure consciousness" are reaching their expiry.

The gap to put your gawd in is shrinking daily. Yes, just like my grandma

 

[MsDoodles]

Silly Hado, you can't argue against believers using the frameworks of reason and science. In fact you simply can't argue with them. Took the bait and swallowed it whole.

My problem with believers is two-fold. First, that it is so deeply sad that they so vehemently believe in and persist in spreading such falsehoods. Second, and this is multiplied by the intensity of the first, is the fact that so deeply believing in a god, they fail to see that if there has to be one, then surely I must be Him.

You know what the problem here is? People like you, with this attitude are immediately disproving the very notion of their intelligence. Here you are mocking believers IN GENERAL (generalization, first logical error), proclaiming that you can't argue with them (obviously you have never really had any really strong point to win the argument), saying that they don't understand reason (you're not using reason either buddy), and then proclaiming that if God exists then you must be it lol. Arrogance, delusions, extreme self assurance of being rational despite the many errors in your argument and condensation. Hm..sorry but I can't take you seriously. The way you write is the epitome of the lil 'I know it all' junkie who can't see past his nose. Maybe instead of mocking believers, you should mock yourself for being an irrationally arrogant I know it all kid with 'god complex'? Here's a secret. Keep your nose down on the damn ground before you make absolute statements because when you write things like that you really undermine your own self. The joke's on you, not on others.

 

[redbaron]

here we are in a thread about how stupid theism vs. atheism debates are, having a debate about atheism and theism

what a world

 

[redbaron]

I mean its cool and all that you say 'thats just the modern dogmas, but the real one isnt bad!!'

but to your own points theres literally hundreds of these cancerous and damaging cults around in the real world, repressing and brainwashing people all the time - so people argue against these cults, because they're real and they cause real problems and there's a multitude of issues with them

sorry if it offends your super awesome not-a-dogmatic-cult niche of religion

 

[Black Rose]

I've read the history of Christianity

I found that the word repent in Greek is metanoia.
noia mean mind and meta means layering
so how I translate it is mind in mind or
mind folding inside itself.

This is also the concept of enlightenment. The halo.

I always thought of repent as guilt.
And I felt guilty all the time.
Metanoia is supposed to be about the halo.
The halo is holiness and nothing to do with guilt.

 

[Cognisant]

Well helloooo there MsDoodles nice to meet you and welcome to the forum, I must say I'm quite impressed with the lofty position you're defending, you've picked your battles wisely, good show.

Just don't forget the devil's in the details and when you decide to descend from your high perch I'll be waiting.

 

[redbaron]

You know what the problem here is? People like you, with this attitude are immediately disproving the very notion of their intelligence. Here you are mocking believers IN GENERAL (generalization, first logical error), proclaiming that you can't argue with them (obviously you have never really had any really strong point to win the argument), saying that they don't understand reason (you're not using reason either buddy), and then proclaiming that if God exists then you must be it lol. Arrogance, delusions, extreme self assurance of being rational despite the many errors in your argument and condensation. Hm..sorry but I can't take you seriously. The way you write is the epitome of the lil 'I know it all' junkie who can't see past his nose. Maybe instead of mocking believers, you should mock yourself for being an irrationally arrogant I know it all kid with 'god complex'? Here's a secret. Keep your nose down on the damn ground before you make absolute statements because when you write things like that you really undermine your own self. The joke's on you, not on others.

oh i just saw this one

cant tell if troll or not, but this sure went from 'atheism vs. theism debates are dumb' to 'atheists are dumb' real quick

before we go any further - are you christian?

 

[Black Rose]

before we go any further - are you christian?

Christ is divinity
I align myself my very spirit with the ultimate good in the universe. The saccade. I cannot turn away from it.

 

[MsDoodles]

oh i just saw this one

cant tell if troll or not, but this sure went from 'atheism vs. theism debates are dumb' to 'atheists are dumb' real quick

before we go any further - are you christian?

I found that the word repent in Greek is metanoia.
noia mean mind and meta means layering
so how I translate it is mind in mind or
mind folding inside itself.

This is also the concept of enlightenment. The halo.

I always thought of repent as guilt.
And I felt guilty all the time.
Metanoia is supposed to be about the halo.
The halo is holiness and nothing to do with guilt.

Actually the translation of metanoia=repenting. I don't know why you mix the halo in this?

 

[MsDoodles]

oh i just saw this one

cant tell if troll or not, but this sure went from 'atheism vs. theism debates are dumb' to 'atheists are dumb' real quick

before we go any further - are you christian?

1. My topic was NEVER about atheists in general. My topic was about the 'arguments' that SOME non-believers seem to think are 'rational' against believers. In that topic, no one has yet answered specifically to the one I said about not believing in anything invisible including abstract ideas such as freedom.
2. My topic's focus is not on a specific religion, it's on the whole argument against the existence of God by people who believe strictly in visible materialistic things. I mentioned a few things about the Bible because the conversation brought it up. My religion or anyone else's religion is not the point of this topic, so I didn't think it was important to mention it.
3. I never mentioned or imply that 'atheists are dumb'. I don't know why you write things I never mentioned. My comment was a reply to the person above who openly mocked believers in an arrogant way and if you didn't notice I was refering specifically to him and not in atheists in general.

If you want us to discuss on the topic itself, I am open for any discussion but when I see offensive comments like the one made from that person, you keep in mind that I will reply however I see fit.

So now, can you answer to my main question? Do you think that people who don't believe in God or in spirits and yet believe in other invisible abstract things such as 'love-hate,etc..' are smarter than religious people? And if so, how are they smarter?

 

[MsDoodles]

Well helloooo there MsDoodles nice to meet you and welcome to the forum, I must say I'm quite impressed with the lofty position you're defending, you've picked your battles wisely, good show.

Just don't forget the devil's in the details and when you decide to descend from your high perch I'll be waiting.

Hey. Do you mind being more clear on that? I'm afraid I'm not very poetic or condenscending.. More on the blunt side I'd say..

 

[MsDoodles]

I mean its cool and all that you say 'thats just the modern dogmas, but the real one isnt bad!!'

but to your own points theres literally hundreds of these cancerous and damaging cults around in the real world, repressing and brainwashing people all the time - so people argue against these cults, because they're real and they cause real problems and there's a multitude of issues with them

sorry if it offends your super awesome not-a-dogmatic-cult niche of religion

Redbaron should I take your offenses as a silly defense mechanism of yours against something you don't like? I don't recall ever offending you and I'm surprised you turned the convo so cheap so soon. Don't worry by the way, my beliefs are not insulted. What IS insulted is your efforts at appearing right in a simple conversion with a topic in which you still haven't answered. I see a lot of prejudice in both you and the other person who offended believers. Do you have personal issues with believers or do you generally not tolerate anyone and anything beyond your measure of what is right and wrong? Because that seems like a very close minded totalitarian way of thinking that surely doesn't fit a person who is thought as 'rational'. You are insulting your own self with your comment, I hope you realize that and if you continue in the same manner, I will simply ignore you. If I wanted to argue with a kid, whose strongest 'argument' is to insult my beliefs in a cheesy 'oh hey your religion is so yucky, lalalalalala', I'd go to the daycare.

 

[MsDoodles]

here we are in a thread about how stupid theism vs. atheism debates are, having a debate about atheism and theism

what a world

Yes redbaron, things like that happen. You know in the world, people are free to think without necessarily accepting a certain idea or theory as absolute. And when people are free to think without prejudice, they also tend to have conversations or debates that should normally include a mutual respect for each other's beliefs, something that some people seem unable to follow, especially when they've already gone up the scale of arrogance and think they know everything.

 

[redbaron]

especially when they've already gone up the scale of arrogance and think they know everything.

was this self-referential or am i missing something

 

[MsDoodles]

So can anyone answer to the actual point of the topic?

If religious people are stupid for believing in invisible things, should the rest of the world believe in also invisible things such as freedom, love and hate or are we ALL stupid for believing in such things since they are invisible? And if believing in such invisible things is not stupid then why is the belief in God a stupid idea? Forget dogmas or specific religions, I'm talking about the mere belief in the existence of a highly intelligent spirit/creator named God. Focus on that people, not on your prejudice against specific religions.

 

[MsDoodles]

was this self-referential or am i missing something

It was about you actually. I never insulted your beliefs or said that I have the knowledge for everything, you did that Do you already forget things you've done? Maybe that's what you're missing. It's so obvious that you're prejudiced, why are you even participating in this convo? This wasn't about your loathing against believers and anyone who doesn't agree with you. If you want that kind of thing, you can always move to N. Korea, you'd do well with Kim.

 

[Black Rose]

I don't know why you mix the halo in this?

The wiki on metanoia says it is more of a spiritual transformation than a guilt-filled admission of feeling sorry. Spiritual transformation has to do with the halo because when you fully accept God you become holly. And that means the mind enlightened (the halo). Makes sense to me that the point of changing one's mind is to be holly-like God because being full of sin is bad and being like God is Good. I never became more like God by feeling guilty all the time.

 

[redbaron]

If religious people are stupid for believing in invisible things, should the rest of the world believe in also invisible things such as freedom, love and hate or are we ALL stupid for believing in such things since they are invisible?

is anyone here really making the argument that religious people are stupid because what they believe in is 'invisible' though?

doesn't seem like it

 

[redbaron]

It's so obvious that you're prejudiced

sorry it's hard to keep up when you're talking in the 3rd person all the time

 

[MsDoodles]

The wiki on metanoia says it is more of a spiritual transformation than a guilt-filled admission of feeling sorry. Spiritual transformation has to do with the halo because when you fully accept God you become holly. And that means the mind enlightened (the halo). Makes sense to me that the point of changing one's mind is to be holly-like God because being full of sin is bad and being like God is Good. I never became more like God by feeling guilty all the time.

Yes, metanoia is about repenting in a deep 'self changing' way. Not just regretting what you've done but being ready to fully change your life in order to become better in a spiritual way.

 

[MsDoodles]

sorry it's hard to keep up when you're talking in the 3rd person all the time

No problem, I don't see any point on you keeping up anyway. If you can't discuss without insulting other people's beliefs, there's no point in it either way

 

[redbaron]

No problem, I don't see any point on you keeping up anyway. If you can't discuss without insulting other people's beliefs, there's no point in it either way

whose beliefs am i insulting? lots of people get insulted about lots of things, but it doesn't mean the thing that insulted them was wrong. the truth is pretty insulting to a lot of people

 

[Black Rose]

So can anyone answer to the actual point of the topic?

If religious people are stupid for believing in invisible things, should the rest of the world believe in also invisible things such as freedom, love and hate or are we ALL stupid for believing in such things since they are invisible? And if believing in such invisible things is not stupid then why is the belief in God a stupid idea? Forget dogmas or specific religions, I'm talking about the mere belief in the existence of a highly intelligent spirit/creator named God. Focus on that people, not on your prejudice against specific religions.

It's not stupid to think God exists but the problem is that invisible things do not act like visible things like cups of milk. God does not do magic like I pray for my chair to disappear and it disappears. Or I pray I get an Xbox one and it appears magically in front of me from nowhere. If God affects the world he can only do so psychically by affecting the minds of humans. Not mind control but intuition. A man bought milk for no reason but he had a feeling and he knocked on a door and the lady had no milk for her baby and said thank you to the man. That is how God works. not magic Xboxs appearing. Cold hard physical things vs psychic things in people. People do not believe in a God that affects hard things. Few believe in a psychic God that affects humans like I do.

 

[MsDoodles]

whose beliefs am i insulting? lots of people get insulted about lots of things, but it doesn't mean the thing that insulted them was wrong. the truth is pretty insulting to a lot of people

Redbaron first of all your material knowledge is extremely small for you to know what the truth is, what you actually mean is Your truth and not THE truth in general and second of all, the fact alone that you write as if you know everything is all the evidence I need to how immature and arrogant your way of thinking is and how little you actually know.

 

[redbaron]

Redbaron first of all your material knowledge is extremely small for you to know what the truth is, what you actually mean is Your truth and THE truth in general and second of all, the fact alone that you write as if you know everything is all the evidence I need to how immature and arrogant your way of thinking is and how little you actually know.

all i said was that there's lots of cult-like religious practice that goes on, and a lot of anti-religious sentiment is directed at those groups

do you disagree? why? be specific if you can

 

[MsDoodles]

It's not stupid to think God exists but the problem is that invisible things do not act like visible things like cups of milk. God does not do magic like I pray for my chair to disappear and it disappears. Or I pray I get an Xbox one and it appears magically in front of me from nowhere. If God affects the world he can only do so psychically by affecting the minds of humans. Not mind control but intuition. A man bought milk for no reason but he had a feeling and he knocked on a door and the lady had no milk for her baby and said thank you to the man. That is how God works. not magic Xboxs appearing. Cold hard physical things vs psychic things in people. People do not believe in a god that affects hard things. Few believe in a psychic God that affects humans like I do.

That's the problem. You pinpointed it in a very interesting way and thank you for that. Most people seem to think that God is something like a magical servant who is obliged to grant them all their wishes like a genie, keep them from doing stupid things despite the free will they are gifted with, and if those things don't happen, God must therefore not exist. It's similar to how humans commit one crime after another and yet blame God for not "solving" their problems. It is really an extremely selfish and dumb belief.

 

[washti]

angels != bacteria

wait. it does.

 

[MsDoodles]

all i said was that there's lots of cult-like religious practice that goes on, and a lot of anti-religious sentiment is directed at those groups

do you disagree? why? be specific if you can

No I don't disagree with that. I myself told you that all someone needs to know which is right according to Christianity and which is not, is to analytically study the original history and dogma of Christianity, something that most people are never really interested in doing. But were you or were you not sarcastic at the end of your comment regarding my 'niche' religion?

 

[redbaron]

most christians don't even do that, let alone practice it that way so i don't really care?

i mean atheism at it's core has nothing to do with any of the things you're talking about either, but the people you have gripes with are the ones who 'attack believers'

but it seems a small price to pay to be condescended to, compared to the literal oppression and abuse spawned by a lot of religion

 

[MsDoodles]

most christians don't even do that, let alone practice it that way so i don't really care?

i mean atheism at it's core has nothing to do with any of the things you're talking about either, but the people you have gripes with are the ones who 'attack believers'

but it seems a small price to pay to be condescended to, compared to the literal oppression and abuse spawned by a lot of religion

I know you might not care. My point is that if someone wants to have a complete view on something the rational thing is to thoroughly study it first. If we want to be blunt, the abuse isn't actually done by religion or faith itself. I dont remember reading about Jesus telling that Christians should have crusades or violently christianize others or other stuff like that. Abuse happens by power driven people and by psychopaths who take positions of influence. I am not keen on believing that atheism in general is the perpetuator of the genocide of 66 millions of Russian Christians who died at the hands of atheist people like Stalin. We should see behind the big window. Religions dont commit crimes unlelss the religion itself teaches raw violence. People commit crimes.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

You can observe the motion of atoms in cells in the brain but you cannot observe my feelings. Subjectivity is unobservable by definition accept to the subject. I look at a red rose. Can you measure my feeling of redness? Can you measure the feeling of pure love I have for my true love and put that in a computer file of numbers. What do you do with the file of numbers? It tells you my atoms moved and I felt love for my true love. But why? Why do atoms moving = true love feelings? Why not feelings of opposite valence from the same atom movements. Atoms in one arrangement and motion have one feeling but why? why not different. Why does a pain nerve not produce pleasure from the exact same atoms in motion? Why these feelings from these atom motions? And why is it immeasurable that we do not know what feelings come from what atom motions? Only I feel my pain, not the measuring device. Only I see the red, not the device measuring me.

Consciousness is not measurable. Only I feel my pain and see redness no the device. It is subjective. Why do I need atoms to feel? I know when atoms move I feel things, I think things, But why, why these atoms? The problem is Unity. (UNITY) is the problem. why am I a unified being from my atoms? My theory is that all activity in the brain unifies by a referent point not in space but in time. Each event connects to all other events in time and so is unified which cannot happen in space. Event in the past connect to events in the future for all events and so even if separated in space is unified in time and the present is the interface between past and future brain events. spiking neurons. Being unified we experience the whole experience of seeing all the park or your room, you see all your room at once or all the park at once. Reference in time interfaced in the present you can see the whole scene at once. Atoms do not need to unify they just need to be a point of reference.

So the motion of the atoms in the past and future matter for the unification of subjectivity in the present. Unification cannot happen only in space. A measuring device cannot feel my feelings, therefore, the subjective is immeasurable.

The issue of reconciling subjective experience and its supposed corresponding neural state is what is called as the 'hard problem of consciousness' in philosophy. It's problematic indeed. Not everybody agrees that there is a hard problem, but yeah, finding unanimous agreement is hard for any philosophical topic.

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

I see people both religious and non-religious constantly having this idiotic argument as to the existence of God or not. Personally I've gone through several phases of beliefs before ending up in the one that I found true to my core, the one I feel that explains everything to me in a genuine way. But that's not the point here. The point is that it always amazed me how some people, especially non-scientists but common everyday people like us, will reach an 'absolute' conclusion that God or anyone and anything close to what we mean as God, cannot and does not exist and that every person who believes so is a religious brainwashed lunatic. The argument they use for their claims which are extremely and profoundly absolute and arrogant, especially for people who are supposed to be using 'logic' for their points, is that religions believe in 'invisible' and 'untouchable' unproved things and 'ghosts' and therefore whoever believes in ghosts is an idiot. I'm sorry but this kind of thinking has so many logic errors and idiocies in it that I really don't know where to begin from.

There may be naive atheists who follows similar reasoning against ghost and religions. But, all in all, as other said, those are the weakest case for atheism, as far as I know.
Most scientists aren't that deep into theism-vs-atheism literature either. Dawkin's arguments against God, for example, aren't considred too seriously among academic philosophers either. The more academic disccusions regarding theism and atheism are usually much more deeper than what you are gonna find in random internet forums, and laypeople, or even among 'scientists'.

 

[Black Rose]

The more academic disccusions regarding theism and atheism are usually much more deeper than what you are gonna find in random internet forums, and laypeople, or even among 'scientists'.

I wonder what concepts they inquire about. Would we understand it.